The original phraseology
is incorrect because the reference to other manifestations requires
the existence of one or more additional manifestations to which this other
is being contrasted. Inasmuch as this particular phase of perfection exists
in only one manifestation—relative perfection—there are no additional types
which require or permit the use of other in this context.

Conclusion:

There was a T5 error in the
1955 text—other was inserted into the text during one of the pre-publication
transcriptions by accidentally repeating the pattern of use found immediately
before and after this sentence.

) 3:1.12; p.46 ¶4
Change type: C2

1st - 6th:
...with the power of choice (concerning Himself)...

7th - 15th,
CD: ...with the power of choice (concerning himself)...

Discussion:

Because there are four additional
changes of this type in Urantia Foundation printings, and a large number of
similar changes in the Uversa Press and Michael Foundation editions, it is
necessary to examine this issue in some detail.

Although pronouns referring
to Deity are usually not capitalized (see, for example, himself later
in the subject paragraph), after extensive computer-aided analysis of the
entire text of The Urantia Book, it has been found (without known exception)
that the capitalization of pronouns referring to Deity is consistent with
the guidelines found in the three editions of the Chicago Manual available
during the period from 1927 to 1955*:

“Capitalize
nouns and adjectives used to designate the Supreme Being, or any member of
the Christian Trinity†; and all pronouns referring to the same when not closely
preceded or followed by a distinct reference to the Deity:

...‘Trust
Him who rules all things’ (but: ‘When God had worked six days, he rested
on the seventh.’)”

Even if, for argument’s sake,
it was appropriate to “modernize” the text of The Urantia Book to keep
its style current, the changes under discussion are not supported by later
editions of the Chicago Manual either. The 12thCM
ed., the standard from 1969 until 1982 (the time period during which these
changes were made), is equally explicit:

“7.77 Pronouns referring
to [Deity personalities] are today seldom capitalized except in instances
where capitalization offers a simple way to avoid ambiguity:

Trust in Him.

God gives man what He wills.

but:

God in his mercy

Jesus and his disciples”

Although the revelators did
not have to be slaves to the mandates of the Chicago Manual, it was,
by all reports, the stylistic authority used by those responsible for the
preparation of the first edition when questions of “capitalization and punctuation”
arose. Anyone attempting to “correct” the text is required to justify a suggested
departure from the guidelines used in the process of preparing the text for
its first publication; the relevant part of those guidelines being, in this
instance, “Choose your authority and stick to it.”

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 11:7.7; p.125 ¶1
Change type: S5

1st:
The relatively quiet zone between the space levels,...,are enormous...

This is one of the minor
errors that entered the database when the original plates were first discarded.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 29:4.27; p.328 ¶3
Change type: S6

1st - 9th,
12th - 14th, CD: Together with their co-workers,
the dissociators,...

10th, 11th,
15th: Together with their coworkers, the
dissociators,...

Discussion:

Neither form is found in
Webster’s; the OED contains only the hyphenated form. The Chicago
Manual’s 9th - 11th editions use co-worker
as an explicit example of a general rule regarding certain prefixes. The
CM’s 10th reads as follows:

“221. Prefixes when joined to roots
do not retain the hyphen except in combination with words beginning with their
terminal vowel, or with w or y:

...co-operation

co-worker”

The relevant rule in CM’s
11th edition (1969) appears to allow coworker by glossing
over the case of prefixes formed with initial w roots, but its 13th
edition (1982) again specifically prescribes the hyphenated form (Table 6.1,
p.180).

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 30:3.12; p.340 ¶1
Change type: S4

1st - 9th,
12th - 14th, CD: ...beings enroute elsewhere
who pause...

10th, 11th,
15th: ...beings en route elsewhere who
pause...

Discussion:

Although the original may
be understandable, it is incorrect French and is not the form that has been
adopted into English (according to Webster’s, the OED, and the
Chicago Manual). A simple dropped space-key explains the original.

The comma after headquarters
is required to enclose, with the following comma, the parenthetical phrase
“as he frequently is.”

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 36:3.6; p.400 ¶1
Change type: S1 or S3

1st:
...subsequently add any thing new or supplemental...

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...subsequently add anything new or supplemental...

Discussion:

The compound word was probably
the author’s choice in this case. The sentence simply does not read well
if, to test an alternative hypothesis, the assumption is made that the two-word
format was chosen by the author for emphasis (which, to this editor, is the
only discernible rationale for the two-word form).

While both a secondary and
a tertiary Circuit Supervisor are assigned to the supervision of a single
local universe’s circuits, only the tertiary Circuit Supervisor is stationed
within the local universe—the secondary Circuit Supervisor is located on the
superuniverse headquarters (See 24:1.5-7). Therefore, if Andovontia is “stationed
in our local universe” he would be a tertiary Universe Circuit Supervisor.

The differences between the
words appear to rule out typing or proofing errors as the source of this problem,
leaving this editor’s “last resort” explanation: Sometime prior to publication,
but when the handwritten manuscript was no longer available as an authoritative
reference, someone noticed what appeared to be an internal inconsistency (ascribed,
presumably, to an earlier human error), and an E1 change (erroneous “correction”)
was made to the text.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is incorrect.
This editor’s best explanation, at present, is an E1 change (tertiary
to secondary) made prior to publication to correct what was believed
to be an earlier human error.

) 40:7.2; p.449 ¶0
Change type: S5

1st - 6th:
...When you and your Adjusters are finally and forever fused,...

The original, plural form
is correct, not only because the referent of every other instance of you
and your in this paragraph is plural (the ascending Sons of God; planetary
sons; sons of ascension potential, etc.), but more importantly, the grammar
of the sentence requires a plural: “When you and your Adjusters are finally
and forever fused,...then in fact have you become the ascending sons of God.”

The change to the text was
probably made because of the confusion caused by the enclosed, parenthetical
phrase, “when you two are made one,...”

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 41:1.1; p.456 ¶0
Change type: P2

1st - 10th,
12th - 15th, CD:Within the domain of this Paradise
Son of God the Supreme...

11th:
Within the domain of this Paradise Son of God, the Supreme...

Discussion:

By indicating the end of
the initial adverbial phrase, a comma here does greatly assist the reader.
If present in the original manuscript, a simple dropped keystroke (T1) error
would have produced the 1955 text.

Textual consistency and current
scientific estimates of our sun’s density both support the change to “forty
thousand.” The first paragraph of this section states that our sun is about
1.5 times the density of water, or about 0.054 pounds per cubic inch, and
40,000 times this is about 2,160 pounds per cubic inch; the current scientific
estimate of the sun’s density is 1.4 times the density of water; 40,000 times
that is roughly 2,035 pounds per cubic inch.

There are two possible explanations
for the appearance of this error in the 1955 text:

1) It is this editor’s opinion
that the number in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000
not forty thousand), and that the error was caused by a simple keystroke
error (T3) in which 6 was mis-keyed for 4, creating 60,000
instead of 40,000. When the text was formatted for printing, the numerals
were changed to words, and an error that formerly consisted of one digit was
transformed into an incorrect word. There is no direct evidence in support
of this theory, but the formatting of words and numbers for printing is not
a revelatory issue; it is a matter of style, and is covered extensively in
the Chicago Manual. The proper formatting of words and numbers is
precisely the type of editorial decision that the revelators could give to
the humans preparing the form of the text for printing without giving
those humans any authority to change any of the content of the text.)
If this theory is correct, this is a simple T3 (incorrect keystroke) error,
disguised by the later change in formatting of the number. (The problem at
43:1.6 appears to have had an identical origin, and 42:5.1 is very closely
related.)

2) The appearance of “sixty
thousand” in the 1955 text could be due to an E1 error: a well-meaning but
erroneous re-calculation of the underlying math—60,000 is 1.5 times 40,000—which
means that the near-by sun is 60,000 times the density of water, though it
is only 40,000 times as dense as our sun.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is incorrect;
it should read forty thousand. There are two likely causes; this editor
favors a T3 (incorrect keystroke) error based on the theory that the manuscript
contained numerals rather than written-out numbers. Alternatively, an E1 change
(forty to sixty) was made prior to 1955 to correct what was
believed to be an earlier human error.

) 42:5.1; p.474 ¶5
Change type: S4

1st:
...ten octaves up are the X rays, followed by the Y rays of radium.

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...ten octaves up are the X rays, followed by the gamma
rays of radium.

Discussion:

From external reference to
physics, and multiple internal cross-references (see for example 42:5.7),
gamma is clearly intended here. As to the origin of the Y in
the 1955 text, it is likely that the Greek letter (
(gamma) was mistakenly transposed into Y at some point in the preparation
of the original edition (probably at the time of the first typing from the
original manuscript) either because of a faulty inference from the immediately
preceding X, from an unfamiliarity with the Greek alphabet, or simply
because there was no better way to represent the character on a standard typewriter.

Even though a typesetter
would have been able to place the letter (
on the page, the later decision to replace that letter with gamma is
clear, reasonable, and consistent with the usage found elsewhere throughout
The Urantia Book.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text was incorrect;
Y should have been (.
The error type is best classified as T3 (incorrect keystroke), although
it should be understood that the technology available for any transcriptions
prior to typesetting did not have a mechanism for representing the correct
character.